In what could be the latest move toward a 2016 presidential bid, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) offered a wide-ranging critique of President Obama’s domestic and foreign policies.
Speaking to reporters at the National Governors Association on Saturday, Christie labeled Obamacare, the administration’s signature legislation, a “failure on a whole number of levels” and said it should be repealed.
“But has to be repeal and replace with what. It can’t just be about repeal,” Christie told the audience. “What I’ve said before is, what Republicans need to be doing is putting forth alternatives for what should be a better healthcare system.”
He also urged his GOP colleagues to keep bringing up their opposition to same-sex marriage, even though a series of court decisions have overturned many statewide gay marriage bans.
“I don’t think there’s some referee who stands up and says, ‘OK, now it’s time for you to change your opinion,’” according to Christie.
Christie also said the latest outbreak of violence between Israelis and Palestinians was partly the White House’s fault because the administration “does stand up for our friends.”
Following the revelation that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to garnish wages without a court order to collect non-tax debts (i.e. misused grant funds, unrepaid loans or “fines, penalties or fees assessed by federal agencies”), the EPA has sought to defend its proposed rules.
The agency cites The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) as its authority for these rules and called it proposed rule “noncontroversial.” It is curious that the agency tucked these rules into the Federal Register as everyone was headed out for the July 4thvacation.
In a Politico story, part of defense offered by EPA was that it had to put these rules forward as “the same Treasury guidelines apply to all federal agencies that refer delinquent non-tax debts to Treasury for Collection.” This is not reassuring. If correct, this means we can soon expect similar rules to garnish wages without a court order from other agencies that have the power to fine citizens. Are such rules in the pipeline for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, and the Bureau of Land Management?
No matter what the EPA says, it is just wrong for an agency to allege violations, impose fines and then garnish wages without a court order. The whole process is stacked against citizens and ripe for abuse. There are, however, a variety of simple fixes:
First, Congress could use its power of the purse and simply prohibit the use of any funds for garnishing wages without a court order as regards fines or penalties imposed by an agency. Given EPA’s warning that other agencies are likely to follow, it could be widely applied.
Second, Congress could overturn the EPA regulation or the underlying 1998 Treasury regulation.
o It could do so by adding due process requirements to the DCIA, crafting procedures that would not be so stilted in favor of the agency.
o More directly, it could simply require that, in the case of fines or penalties, an agency obtain a court order for wage garnishment.
o It could even amend the DCIA to limit garnishment to non-regulatory debts.
There are other possible fixes, but the point is this: This is a problem that Congress should be easily able to analyze and fix in a bipartisan manner.
An EPA spokesperson tried to assuage fears stating that, before wages could be garnished for fines, alleged violators are given prior notice and the opportunity to “review, contest or enter into a payment agreement.”
When one reads regulations’ fine print that opportunity is not so encouraging. Under EPA’s proposed system, the agency gets to unilaterally decide whether there is an oral hearing or whether it will decide the case based on the paper record. If there is an oral hearing, EPA has unbridled discretion to choose where. So, if you are from Alaska for example, the EPA could decide the oral hearing for your alleged violations will be in Washington DC. Tough luck.
Also, according to EPA’s proposed system, when you arrive your hearing official will be someone picked by the very agency that has sought to impose the fine. EPA gets to designate any individual the agency considers “qualified” for that job. Could EPA’s view of “qualified” include the official who imposed the fines in the first place? Who knows? Finally the standards basically put the burden of proving one’s self innocent on the citizen. While most see this as ridiculously stacked, this is the EPA’s notion of“adopting hearing procedures that … provide due process.”
There is no reason to tolerate this behavior. It is regulators gone wild and should be nipped in the bud.
The Ten Supreme Court Decisions This Year That Will Change America Andrew Kloster / @ARKloster / July 12, 2014
Andrew R. Kloster is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, focusing on civil rights, the role of the federal courts and other constitutional issues.
With the Supreme Court on summer recess, it’s time to review the biggest cases of the October 2013 docket. SCOTUSblog’s “Stat Pack” notes that the Court this term had a high degree of unanimity and a relative lack of 5-4 decisions. But by margins both large and small, the court issued a number of important cases.
Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about the importance of any case. In compiling my own list, I generally ranked them with two criteria in mind. First, does the case affect constitutional doctrine, either by clarifying a murky area of law or by raising or lowering a legal bar? Second, will the case have practical consequences, either by shifting billions of dollars in legal rights, or by changing standard operating procedure for government agencies or law enforcement? If a case does either or both of these things, it appears higher on the list.
Here, in reverse order, are my top ten:
10. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA
This complicated set of cases dealt with the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. In a 9-0 decision (at least with respect to the result), the Court held that part of what the EPA was trying to do was not permissible under the Clean Air Act, and part of it was. The Court ruled that the EPA went too far in terms of asserting statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases and in attempting to “tailor” the statute to regulate only “major emitters” of greenhouse gases. However, the Court said that the EPA could impose carbon limits on facilities that already fall under permitting programs pursuant to other parts of the Clean Air Act. Even though the case didn’t deal with any constitutional rights, it is hugely important, because it involves billions of dollars of regulated activity and the fight over global warming (or global climate change, as it is now called). The decision ensures that industry and the EPA will continue to fight in federal court for years to come. At least the lawyers will be happy.
9. Bond v. US
When Carol Bond smeared dangerous chemicals on the mailbox of her former best friend (who, in the spirit of a Maury episode, was pregnant by Bond’s husband), the feds got involved. Assault is a state-law crime, but a law enacted under the Treaty Power gave the federal government an opening. Many observers expected the Court would take the case as an opportunity to opine on the scope of the Treaty Power. Instead, the Court ducked the issue. Writing for a majority of six (although the judgment on the result was 9-0), Chief Justice Roberts held that the federal law, as a matter of statutory interpretation, simply didn’t cover Bond’s conduct. Still, it’s an important case, because, in sussing out the meaning of the law’s text, the Court made clear that it will interpret treaties — and legislation implementing treaties — with an eye toward preserving “traditional state authority.”
8. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
In one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, the Court ruled that closely held corporations that have sincerely held religious objections cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. While the 5-4 opinion was littered with constitutional language, it’s important to remember that this case involved the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that can be repealed or modified at any time (and which Congress can override in a subsequent statute). Indeed, Senate Democrats immediately proposed amending the law in various ways. In other words, it’s an open question whether this case will have big consequences going forward. There is no doubt, however, that it will change the public discourse about the proper role of religious freedom in our society and about the rights of corporations. Lower-court litigation over which corporations are covered underHobby Lobby is quite likely. But the Court made two things clear. First, whether a corporation is “for-profit” or “non-profit” doesn’t matter for RFRA purposes. Second, corporations are “persons” for RFRA purposes.
7. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
Justice Thomas penned the unanimous decision in this First Amendment case coming out of Ohio. Ohio has a convoluted scheme that criminalizes “false” statements made during a political campaign. A pro-life organization, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), put up billboards stating that a former congressman had voted for “taxpayer funded abortion” when he voted for Obamacare. He filed a complaint with the Ohio agency responsible for investigating “false” statements. The agency voted to move forward with the investigation, but put it on hold until after the election. Driehaus lost the election, and dropped the complaint, but not before SBA sued in federal court to have the law declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the SBA could maintain its suit, because even though the complaint had been dropped, it still faced a substantial threat of enforcement of a law that burdened electoral speech. This merely sent the case back to a lower court, butthe holding could make it easier to stop the actions of administrative agencies, perhaps beyond simply those that threaten to sanction controversial speech. Particularly amusing was the friend-of-the-court brief by humorist P.J. O’Rourke and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, arguing that “truthiness” is “a key part of political discourse.”
6. Town of Greece v. Galloway
Like many towns across America, the Town of Greece, N.Y., opens its city meetings with a prayer given by local clergy. The prayer is open to all comers, but while Jewish and Baha’i invocations were given (and a Wiccan was invited to offer the prayer), most of the invocations were Christian in nature. When two citizens sued, claiming that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, many thought it would be a slam dunk, because the Supreme Court had held in 1983 that “legislative prayer” did not violate the First Amendment. But some questioned the specific, sectarian nature of the prayers — many of which invoked Jesus. In upholding the practice by a 5-4 margin, the Court limited the so-called “endorsement” test and held that prayers which endorse “values that count as universal and that are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our founding documents and laws” cannot possibly be unconstitutional. In other words, rather than applying one legal test or another, the Court simply stated that the traditional practice of legislative prayer is beyond constitutional debate. This case will almost certainly be used in a wide variety of Establishment Clause cases going forward, to uphold traditional intersections of religion and government.
5. Daimler AG v. Bauman
When Argentine residents sued a German car maker for allegedly collaborating with the Argentine government to kidnap, torture, and kill certain workers back in the 1970s, the question was this: Why was the suit filed in an American court? In a 9-0 decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court tossed out the case as violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It looks like a technical case, butDaimler AG is another nail in the coffin for creative lawyers seeking to bring international human-rights claims (and other international tort claims) in U.S. courts.
4. McCullen v. Coakley
The judges — liberal and conservative alike — all agreed that the Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot “no speech zone” around abortion clinics violated the First Amendment. The Court reiterated that state governments can pass laws to protect the health and safety of abortion-clinic staff and patrons, but ruled that there are many less restrictive ways to protect these people than placing a 35-foot no-go zone around a clinic. While four conservative justices on the Court would have gone further and held that the buffer zone was created to target pro-life speech and was therefore not “content neutral,” the entire Court agreed that the law was an “extreme step” that was unnecessary to protect the safety of those entering and exiting clinics. While the narrow issue itself is of limited importance, the case represents broad agreement among the justices both that the First Amendment is alive and well and that the Court will take the purported policy justifications for such laws with a grain of salt absent a strong evidentiary showing to back them up.
3. Harris v. Quinn
Many states provide reimbursements to Medicaid home-care providers. Often it is a family member who will take care of a sick relative and apply for money from the state. After the State of Illinois authorized unionization, a majority of home-care providers designated the Service Employees International Union to be the exclusive representative of these “employees.” Illinois subsequently entered into a contract with the union that would require all home-care providers to pay the union a fee, even if they didn’t want to join. In a ruling that could have sweeping implications for public-sector unions across the country, the Court held that this scheme violated the First Amendment rights of the home-care providers, because it required them to pay money out of their own pockets to fund speech, including political speech,that they might not support. Other “forced unionization” schemes are now suspect, including unionization of day care providers and full-fledged public employees.
2. McCutcheon v. FEC
Campaign finance was an esoteric subject until the 2010 Citizens Unitedcase, which overturned certain statutory constraints on corporate campaign contributions. This term, some were touting McCutcheon as “the next Citizens United.” In this case, the Court struck down aggregate contribution limits to campaigns. In a bizarre scheme, federal law limited not only how much someone could contribute to individual campaigns, but also how much someone could contribute overall. While the individual limits are still in place (for now anyway), the Court held that the government’s justification for the law — preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption — wasn’t served by the aggregate limits, and that the law affected a lot of innocent speech. Going forward, this case will be of significant practical impact: Wealthy donors will be able to contribute to more campaigns. But it also demonstrates that the Supreme Court is taking First Amendment concerns very seriously, and will continue to scrutinize sham justifications for laws.
1. Riley v. California
This hugely important case establishes a blanket rule for cell-phone searches by police: Get a warrant. Previously, police had argued (and some courts had agreed) that the Fourth Amendment allowed cell-phone searches without a warrant when the cell phone was seized “incident to arrest.” In other words, during a standard pat-down after arresting someone, if an officer came across a cell phone, he could search it then and there. No longer. In a 9-0 opinion by the chief justice, the Court held that, as a general matter, police need a warrant to search a cell phone seized during an arrest. This case should immediately have huge implications across the country as police are forced to change their standard procedures. Furthermore, the case indicates that the Supreme Court is capable of grappling with the legal implications of rapidly changing technology. As a practical matter, if an officer has evidence that a cell phone has been used as a part of a business selling illegal narcotics, it shouldn’t be too difficult to quickly get a warrant. Honorable Mentions:
Schuette v. BAMN: Activists sued the State of Michigan to invalidate a ban on affirmative action that had been enacted via a statewide referendum, arguing that banning racial preferences through this process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a complicated ruling (3-2-1-2 or 6-2, depending on how you count the concurrences), the Court upheld the referendum and the citizens’ right to enact statewide affirmative-action bans if they so choose.
NLRB v. Noel Canning: President Obama decided to “go it alone” in January 2012 and appoint various officials to positions without the advice and consent of the Senate, asserting his authority to do so under the Recess Appointments Clause in Article II of the Constitution. The problem was that the Senate had not declared itself to be in recess and was holding pro forma sessions every three days. The Supreme Court unanimously threw out the appointments, holding that if the Senate says it’s in session, it’s in session, even if the president doesn’t get his way. The ruling assures that recess appointments will proceed more or less the way they did for all of the 20th century.
The Patent Docket: In a variety of cases, the Supreme Court continued to clarify patent law doctrine and litigation practices. Though Congress failed to pass “patent troll” legislation this summer, it might not need to if the Court continues to scrutinize this area of the law.
States That Adopt This Policy Have Much Better Economies
Stephen Moore
July 12, 2014
Right-to-work is back in the spotlight, thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn.
The court ruled that Illinois home care workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues to the Service Employees International Union if those workers are not union members.
This was a limited victory for worker rights against coercive unionization and forced payment of union dues of all employees. Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that in 2014 this is not already a protected right in most states.
In 26 states, workers can be compelled to join a union and pay dues at a union shop whether they wish to or not. Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, workers can even be forced to pay union dues for partisan political activities with which they don’t agree.
The one exception is that under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, states may pass right-to-work laws that protect workers from being required to join the union as a condition of employment. With the recent passage of right-to-work laws in Michigan and Indiana, there are now 24 states with this workplace freedom, while the other 26 states still allow forced unionization.
In our new book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States, (with Arthur Laffer, Travis Brown, and Rex Sinquefield), we find that these right-to-work states are performing much better economically than the non-right-to-work states.
Many businesses refuse to locate a new plant in a state that doesn’t offer this worker and employer protection against coercive powers of unions. It was no geographical accident that Boeing built its new assembly plant in South Carolina and not in its home state of Washington and why the unions and the Obama administration tried to block the move. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, Washington isn’t.
The nearby charts show what a difference a right-to-work law can make for jobs and economic development. Population growth over the last decade was 13 percent in right-to-work states versus only 6.5 percent in the others.
Nearly five million Americans left forced-union states for right-to-work states, no doubt because right-to-work states are where the jobs are. Total income growth was about 10 percent higher in right-to-work states.
This refutes the argument by the Left that union power makes a state richer. If union power is such a positive force for the middle class and blue-collar workers, why are workers voting with their feet against these policies?
The answer is that Americans go to where the jobs are. And job creation is happening at twice the pace over the last decade in right-to-work states. This is a lesson that Indiana and Michigan have learned.
Both states have seen healthy job growth above the national average (even with the bankruptcy of Detroit) since workplace freedom was extended to workers.
In researching our book, we discovered that the two most important policy variables influencing the prosperity of particular states are whether a state has a right-to-work law and its income tax rate (the lower the better). These two factors help explain the flow of jobs and people from the Midwest and Northeast to the South and Southeast.
In our interviews with CEOs of major companies over the years, many told me they wouldn’t even consider moving a new plant or facility to a state unless the state has a right-to-work law. Forced-union states like Maryland aren’t even in the game.
If every state had such a law, the competitiveness of the entire nation would improve and fewer jobs would go overseas. In the spirit of 1776, I would love to see Congress amend the NLRA defining a nationally protected right to work and extend to all Americans a First Amendment right not to associate with a union.
Given the union power hold in Washington, however, that isn’t likely to happen any time soon. Until it does, every state should improve its competitive climate domestically and internationally by enacting a right-to-work law. This is one of those wonderful rare instances where states can do good and do well at the same time.
NEA Teachers unions turn on Obama
By Peter Sullivan – 07/12/14 01:49 PM EDT
Teachers unions have turned on Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Obama administration, creating a major divide in the Democratic Party coalition.
The largest teachers union in the country, the National Education Association (NEA), called for Duncan to resign at its convention on July 4, arguing his policies on testing have failed the nation’s schools.
Tensions between Duncan and the unions had been building for some time.
The administration’s Race to the Top program, which has provided $4.35 billion to states, incentivized changes that unions strongly oppose. One of the most controversial policies backed by Duncan is using students’ improvement on standardized tests to help evaluate teachers and make pay and tenure decisions.
“Our members are frustrated and angry,” said NEA president Dennis Van Roekel. “Number one is the toxic testing. There is too much.”
An added spark came on June 10, when a California judge ruled the state’s teacher tenure laws are unconstitutional because they keep ineffective teachers in the classroom and deprive poor and minority students of their right to an equal education.
Teachers unions, which are strong defenders of tenure, expressed outrage when Duncan said the plaintiffs in the case were just some of millions of students disadvantaged by tenure laws. He called the decision “a mandate to fix these problems.”
With the teachers unions at loggerheads with the administration, Democrats are suddenly at risk of losing one of their most reliable allies and fundraising sources.
Rep. Garrett Calls for Retraction from White House Over Recent Comments about Israel’s Commitment to Peace
Jul 10, 2014
Co-Sponsors Resolution Supporting Israel’s Right to Defend Itself
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) is calling for a retraction of comments by top White House official Philip Gordon, Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region. In a recent foreign policy address, Gordon questioned Israel’s commitment to peace by saying: “How can Israel have peace if it’s unwilling to delineate a border [and] end the occupation…?”
“The Obama administration should immediately repudiate Mr. Gordon’s comments. As Israel defends itself against countless rocket attacks from Hamas, it shouldn’t also have to defend itself against those in the White House. While the Obama administration says it supports Israel, these comments obviously stand in stark contrast to that commitment and must be retracted. My heart goes out to those who have been the victims of these attacks. I wholeheartedly support our greatest friend and ally in the Middle East as they seek to eliminate those who are perpetrating this violence.”
This week, Congressman Garrett co-sponsored H. Res. 657, a resolution that reaffirms the United States’ support for Israel’s right to defend its citizens and ensure the survival of the State of Israel, condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel, and calls on Hamas to immediately cease all rocket and other attacks against Israel.
American Red Cross Waterfront Lifeguard Training Blended Learning Course at the YWCA YWCA Bergen County now offers an American Red Cross Waterfront Lifeguard Training blended learning course. Including an online learning section, this blended course will prepare students with the CPR, First Aid and lifeguard techniques necessary for employment as a professional lifeguard. After passing the prerequisite swim skills test, students will be provided a link to begin online training. This course will be offered on July 14, 15, 17, 22 and 24 at 112 Oak Street in Ridgewood from 6:00pm to 9:00pm. Prerequisite swim test will be held in Ridgewood on Saturday, July 12th at 10:00am. The online learning section of this course must be completed by July 16. Participants in these courses must be 15 years of age or older. A $10 swim test fee is due at registration and the course fee is $400. For more information or to register call the YWCA Aquatics Department at 201-444-5600, x349, or visit www.ywcabergencounty.org
PSE&G Project to modernize low pressure cast iron gas mains in or near flood zones
PSE&G – Energy Strong Gas Project in Ridgewood – Starts July 21
Below are details of gas replacement project that will start in Ridgewood on July 21, 2014.
Click Here for Maps of work locations..
Click Here for FAQ’s
Click Here for a Fact Sheet.
PSE&G Press Release:
New Jersey’s gas and electric infrastructure is on its way to becoming stronger and more resilient thanks to approval of PSE&G’s Energy Strong Program. This $1.22 billion program will allow the utility to proactively protect and strengthen its electric and gas systems against severe weather damage like the state experienced during Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy.
As part of the Energy Strong program, PSE&G will make the following investments during the next few years:
• $620 million to protect, raise or relocate 29 switching and substations that were damaged by water in recent storms.
• $350 million to replace and modernize 250 miles of low-pressure cast iron gas mains in or near flood areas.
• $100 million to create redundancy in the system, reducing outages when damage occurs.
• $100 million to deploy smart grid technologies to better monitor system operations to increase our ability to more swiftly deploy repair teams.
• $50 million to protect five natural gas metering stations and a liquefied natural gas station affected by Sandy or located in flood zones.
Bloggers, Surveillance and Obama’s Orwellian State Justin Lynch July 11, 2014 U.S. President Barack Obama (R) arrives to make a statement to the news media about the recent problems at the Veterans Affairs Department with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House May 21, 2014 in Washington, DC.Chip Somodevilla—Getty Images
Advancements in technology have fueled this White House’s obsession with controlling the message.
Jay Carney is free. But not loose – at least so far. After resigning as the press secretary for President Obama on June 20, Carney gave insight into the Obama administration’s handling of classified documents, and responded to criticism that this administration has been the most Orwellian in recent history.
“I know — because I covered them — that this was said of Clinton and Bush, and it will probably be said of the next White House,” said Carney in a recent New York Times Magazine interview. “I think a little perspective is useful…It is a serious, serious matter to leak classified information. Some of the debate around this kind of forgets how serious that is.”
But, it could also be the changing nature of the relationship between the media and the White House. At a recent event at the New America Foundation, journalists and historians challenged Carney, arguing that this White House has been more secret than previous occupants.
“Increasingly, the Obama White House has become so brittle, and so controlling of the message, that people are afraid to respond to me,” said Kimberly Dozier, a former Associated Press reporter. She was one of the journalists whose phone records were obtained by the Department of Justice last spring during its investigation into a leak of classified information about a failed Al-Qaeda plot. The scope of that investigation, some critics said, was unprecedented overreach.
JULY 4, 2014 LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, JULY 4, 2014, 12:31 AM BY JODI WEINBERGER STAFF WRITER Print
Eight graduates at Ridgewood High School’s Project Graduation celebration at Benjamin Franklin Middle School (BF) on June 25 were removed from the all-night party and found in possession or under the influence of alcohol, according to a police report. Of the eight, one was taken to Valley Hospital while the rest were released to their parents, police said.
Following the commencement ceremony on June 24, seniors were taken by bus to a dinner dance. Between the dance and Project Graduation, the teens have time to change out of their white dresses and tuxedos at home before arriving by their own transportation to BF at midnight. Police officers Shayne James and John Ward Jr. were stationed at the event and monitored the new graduates as they walked into the celebration until they left, around 6 a.m.
Superintendent Daniel Fishbein said on July 2 that students next year would be taken immediately from the dance to BF, where they will change to prevent time for the students to drink or get alcohol.
“We do all types of things from just talking to them and having the parents talk to them, but unfortunately kids are resourceful and hopefully that one change of not having time between when they get off the bus and get changed at home will help alleviate that,” Fishbein said.
Black Americans: The True Casualties of Amnesty Democrats throw black voters under the bus. By A. J. Delgado
One of the sleeper issues surrounding the debate on amnesty for illegal immigrants – an inconvenient one that no proponent of a widespread amnesty wishes to acknowledge – is the devastating effect so-called immigration reform will have on African Americans.
The black unemployment rate is almost 11 percent, far higher than that of any other group profiled by labor statistics. African Americans are disproportionately employed in lower-skilled jobs – the very same jobs immigrants take. As Steven Camarota asked in a recent column, why double immigration when so many people already aren’t working?
NORWALK, Conn. — Start in Room 4, just beyond the reception area: A man is having blood drained from a bruised finger. Over in Room 1, a woman is being treated for eye trouble. Next door, in Room 2, a boy is having his throat swabbed.
For more than eight hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, an assortment of ailments is on display at the tidy medical clinic on Main Avenue here. But all of the patients have one thing in common: No one is being treated at a traditional doctor’s office or emergency room.
Instead, they have turned to one of the fastest-growing segments of American health care: urgent care, a common category of walk-in clinics with uncommon interest from Wall Street. Once derided as “Doc in a Box” medicine, urgent care has mushroomed into an estimated $14.5 billion business, as investors try to profit from the shifting landscape in health care.
The office here is part of PhysicianOne Urgent Care. Bankrolled by two private investment companies, PhysicianOne has grown into an eight-clinic operation, the largest of its kind in Connecticut, with plans for even greater expansion.
But what is happening here is also playing out across the nation, as private equity investment firms, sensing opportunity, invest billions in urgent care and related businesses. Since 2008, these investors have sunk $2.3 billion into urgent care clinics. Commercial insurance companies, regional health systems and local hospitals are also looking to buy urgent care practices or form business relationships with them.
The business model is simple: Treat many patients as quickly as possible. Urgent care is a low-margin, high-volume proposition. At PhysicianOne here, most people are in and out in about 30 minutes. The national average charge runs about $155 per patient visit. Do 30 or 35 exams a day, and the money starts to add up.
Urgent care clinics also have a crucial business advantage over traditional hospital emergency rooms in that they can cherry-pick patients. Most of these centers do not accept Medicaid and turn away the uninsured unless they pay upfront. Hospital E.R.s, by contrast, are legally obligated to treat everyone.
Censorship: 38 journalism groups slam Obama’s ‘politically-driven suppression of news’
BY PAUL BEDARD | JULY 9, 2014 | 11:21 AM
In unprecedented criticism of the White House, 38 journalism groups have assailed the president’s team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”
In a letter to President Obama, the 38, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, said efforts by government officials to stifle or block coverage has grown for years and reached a high-point under his administration despite Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to provide transparency.
Worse, they said: As access for reporters has been cut off, the administration has opened the door to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”
And as a result, they wrote, Obama only has himself to blame for the current cynicism of his administration. “You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in,” wrote David Cuillier, president of SPJ.
The administration has dismissed similar charges from other journalism groups, notably the White House Correspondents’ Association, but the new letter sent Tuesday provided several examples of censorship and efforts to block reporter access. Among them:
• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people.
• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines.
• Officials conveying information “on background” — refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.
• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.
“In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists — and the audience they serve — have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote,” added the letter.
In addition to asking for openness, the groups demanded Obama create an ombudsman position to help clear away barriers to news coverage.
NJ TRANSIT ADOPTS FISCAL YEAR 2015 OPERATING, CAPITAL BUDGETS NO FARE INCREASE
Fares held stable for fifth consecutive fiscal year July 9, 2014
NEWARK, NJ — The NJ TRANSIT Board of Directors today approved a Fiscal Year 2015 (FY 2015) operating budget that holds fares stable for the fifth consecutive fiscal year, as well as a capital program that supports continued investments in infrastructure and equipment to maintain the system in a state of good repair and enhance the overall customer experience.
“NJ TRANSIT is moving forward with a balanced, fiscally-sound budget that holds the line on fares for a fifth consecutive year and continues to deliver the same level of service to our customers,” said NJ TRANSIT Executive Director Veronique “Ronnie” Hakim. “We will continue to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible to best respond to the needs of the customers who rely on our service day in and day out.”
The Board approved a $2.019 billion operating budget and a $1.203 billion capital program for the fiscal year that started July 1, 2014.
Nearly half of the revenue in the FY 2015 operating budget comes from fares ($928.6 million), supported by a comparable amount from state and federal program reimbursements ($936.1 million) with the balance from a combination of commercial revenues ($113.7 million) and state operating assistance ($40.3 million).
The capital program funds continued state-of-good-repair investments in transit stations and infrastructure, supports an ongoing fleet modernization program and advances service reliability, safety and technology initiatives.
Operating Budget
The FY 2015 operating budget reflects a stable level of state, federal and other reimbursements, which will enable NJ TRANSIT to hold fares stable this fiscal year.
Approximately 58 percent of the operating budget is dedicated to labor and fringe benefits costs. Other significant expenses include contracted transportation services, fuel and power, and materials, which together comprise approximately 28 percent of the operating budget.
This year’s operating budget reflects an $8 million (one percent) growth in passenger revenue, based on employment projections and ridership trends. Overall passenger revenue and commercial revenue represents approximately 52 percent of the total FY 2015 operating program.
Capital Program
The FY 2015 capital program continues to prioritize investment in infrastructure to maintain an overall state of good repair, enhance reliability and safety, and improve the overall customer experience on the system.
The program continues to invest in upgrades to the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the agency’s most utilized rail line. The NEC is allocated $76 million in FY 2015 as part of NJ TRANSIT’s ten-year, $1 billion Northeast Corridor investment program that includes funding for the new North Brunswick Station, the Mid-Line Loop—a new flyover track to improve Corridor operations and increase operational efficiencies—and upgrades to County Yard.
Highlights of the program include $46 million in rail station improvements, including $9 million for Elizabeth Station reconstruction, $5 million for Newark Penn Station improvements, and $12 million for projects to make Perth Amboy and Lyndhurst stations accessible to customers with disabilities.
The program also supports continued investment in rolling stock renewal, with $104 million invested in rail rolling stock improvements and $44 million toward the purchase of new buses.
Funding is also provided for technology and security upgrades, and rail, bus and light rail infrastructure improvements.
Approximately 40 percent of the capital budget comes from the Transportation Trust Fund, with the balance coming from federal and other sources.
New Jersey Senate to vote on slowing Common Core implementation July 8, 2014 ALISSA MACK
TRENTON, N.J. – Another state could put a crimp in the Common Core takeover by the end of this week.
The New Jersey Assembly passed a bill on June 16 with a 72-4 vote with two abstentions to delay the use of new student assessments linked to Common Core by at least two years, according to Capitol Quickies.
The bill (A3081) would create a task force to review the standards and give school districts the option of administering PARCC tests in the upcoming two school years.
Capitol Quickies reports:
The state Senate has scheduled a vote for Thursday afternoon on legislation (A3081) that establishes an Education Review Task Force to analyze the Common Core standards, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessments and the use of students’ test results in evaluating teachers…
The bill says that for at least two years, or longer if the task force’s final report isn’t completed within the year it’s supposed to take, PARCC assessments can’t be used as a high school graduation requirement or for other school or students accountability purposes. It also says that growth in students’ test scores can’t be used for at least two years for a teacher’s or principal’s evaluation…
The task force would have 15 members, including acting Education Commissioner David Hespe or his designee and eight members recommended by the following organizations: the American Federation of Teachers New Jersey, the New Jersey Association of School Administrators, the New Jersey Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the New Jersey Council of County Vocational Schools, the New Jersey Education Association, the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, the New Jersey School Boards Association and the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network.
Three public members would also be appointed to the task force.
The new site did not seem confident that Gov. Christie would sign the bill should it reach his desk this week.
